Occasionally, but not lately. They have been more of a drag down. Asking questions nobody cares about, and sometimes acting down right stupid.

Sorry, did I say "acting stupid"?

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

They "subtract" value from them.  I've seen more class amongst the judges of the America's Top Model show.

Unfortunatley debates these days aren't really debates. They are "ratings" grabs for the sponsoring news channel. Thats why you see all this silly stuff going on. This latest debate was somewhat refreshing simply because you didn't see "CNN/You Tube" plastered all over the place. What it lacked in promo's pasted all over the stage, was made up for with a horrible moderator and boring format.

I think they usually add value. The right questions, asked of the right people, can be very valuable to a candidate... just look at the Blitzer/Clinton team. Also, good moderators like Brit Hume always add a lot to the debate.

The questions of the media moderators are often inane and/or titled to the left.

And the debates themselves are seldom actual debates but more frequently candidates taking turns being interviewed. It'd be like all the candidates appearing on Meet The Press and Tim Russert taking turns asking each of them a question, instead of asking one person questions for the whole hour.

It used to be different. Remember when they actually used to let the candidates ask each other questions and reply back and forth to each other?

A liberal persuaded against his will is of the same opinion still.

Who is the "school marm"?? and how did she get the gig??

Chris Wallace is the only one I like.

Matthews, Queef Obermann and Blitz....suck.

mom

Unless it is a liberal Bernie asking liberal Mike Dukakis an easy question of "If a man rapes and murders your wife would you still parole him"..........

And Dukakis blinks and says, "Yup would have him over for tea with my daughters too", there really is only garbage at these debates.

They all run the same way in showing Democrats want to tax the world into oblivion and everyone except Fred Thompson is a closet Democrat on the GOP side.

Dick Cheney had a love fest with Joe Lieberman, the wives all dunce about and I really do not want to see Bill Clinton rubbing his body into Jeri Thompson 10 seconds too long in an opening hug. Debates are what Newt stated in auditions where people are trying to get a sound bite by being the most goofy.

Huckabee surgers in the GOP and apparently no one is listening to what he really was talking about no more than Ron Paul's ideas would get nuclear bombs dropped into American cities by terrorists.

People cheer that 3 million people watched a debate..........that is 1 percent of 300 million Americans. The other 297 have the right outlook in not paying attention to what is going on until September 2008 as nothing is said in these but pandering and idiocy.

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh etc. would add value...but that would be the day.

Usually: YES. When they are certain the topics they choose are 50/50 and wouldn't necessarily hurt Democrats.

Sometimes: OF COURSE. Whenever they are convinced that they have enough time to make up for whatever mistakes they made in the debate. 

Occasionally: SURE. When they feel like throwing Republicans a bone.

Never: They will always make sure that that "value", will never never "value" Republicans. 

 I'm sticking to my premise that debates are a joke, a waste of time, an unnecessary diversion, a hoax, pretentious, garbage, a pile of pomposity, and stupid.

  The moderators are just sitting in the middle of shite, and spew the same.

Anyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar.